Plan B Forum

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died at age 87. Thatcher helped keep the UK on the road to demon-inspired, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom hell by declaring her support for the godless evil that is socialized medicine:

The principle that adequate health care should be provided for all, regardless of ability to pay, must be the foundation of any arrangements for financing the Health Service. We stand by that.

Under Thatcher, the tax rate on the highest income-receivers at the end of her term was higher than the tax rate on the highest income-receivers is now under Obama.

When Thatcher left office, the lowest-bracket tax rate was 25%. Today's Republican crackpots want the highest-bracket tax rate to be 25%.

After more than a decade of Thatcherism, taxes made up almost twice the percentage of the UK's GDP as taxes make up of the US's GDP toay.

If Thatcher was a fiscal conservative, then the US needs a lot more fiscal conservatives.

ever get the impression that you're talking to yourself?

Here? No.

When I put up long postings, I get complaints about their length.

So I figured that this time, I would try spoon-feeding.

And when one's political opponents are overgrown infants, spoon-feeding seems the way to go.

That just about say it all doesn't it?

Perhaps if you had had any exposure to the United States Constitution you would be aware that the national government is prohibited from actively participating in such private (and state) matters as health care, retirement funds, education, and things of that nature.

In England, completely on the contrary, the national government has made an overt and express commitment to health care, pensions, etc. Thus, when Lady Thatcher supported those programs and initiatives, she was acting fully in concert with the prevailing law and the national government's mandate.

As contrasted with this country, where such initiatives are blatantly unconstitutional, and thus run into at least the pretense of opposition when they are proposed, funded, and expanded beyond all rational justification.

I was really hoping for something other than a post that lends credence to Andrews position

dgs49 wrote:As contrasted with this country, where such initiatives are blatantly unconstitutional, and thus run into at least the pretense of opposition when they are proposed, funded, and expanded beyond all rational justification.

Despite never being able to show how they're unconstitutional, just a bunch of jumping and pointing toward the Constitution.

Or it could be that there's a bunch of opposition because people are more interested in scoring "points" for their side than in doing their jobs.

The fact is, that in nearly all European countries the value and necessity of a welfare state which provides for medical care and significant levels of redistribution is not questioned by either party. English conservatives are roughly in the center of the democratic party and to the left of both Clinton and Obama in most respects (the recent adherence to the failed austerity policy is an exception). This has been pointed out by many commentators including The Economist.

yrs,
rubato

Andrew D wrote:Here? No.

When I put up long postings, I get complaints about their length.

So I figured that this time, I would try spoon-feeding.

And when one's political opponents are overgrown infants, spoon-feeding seems the way to go.

Someone is being a bad influence on you...

Not all people who disagree with me on political issues are my political opponents; not all of them are overgrown children. Some are my somewhat misguided fellow adults.

I do not reject every proposal propounded by conservatives. In fact, I have embraced some proposals which give many other progressives fits. (I have also embraced a vision of libertarianism which gives many other libertarians fits, but that is probably for another day.)

For example, I have repeatedly said that Social Security benefits should be means-tested. I have also said that we should raise the eligibility age for Social Security benefits. Those are not positions which endear me to other progressives.

But there are political propositions, including political propositions embraced by many self-described conservatives, which are infantile. And I do not know a better way to describe people who embrace infantile positions than as overgrown infants.

For example, the Ryan budget. For starters, it is fantastical. Ryan has conceded that it is based on the assumption that Obamacare will be repealed. But as even the FOX guy interviewing Ryan recognized, "that's not going to happen." So how should one describe a budget that is based on a fantasy -- on an assumption that has all the plausibility of Cinderalla, Snow White, or any other fairy tale? "Infantile" seems right to me.

Beyond that, the notion of privatizing ("voucherizing") Social Security strikes me as a puerile "waah, waah, I don't want to pay for other people's old age!" And the notion of reducing the top income tax rate to 25% strikes me as a sort of "rags to riches, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" thing -- the childish notion that the accumulation of wealth does not depend on society's collectively determined structures which make such accumulations possible.

I used to believe that there are plenty of reasonable, adult conservatives out there. And I optimistically cling to that idea.

But the current political climate provides precious little support for that hope. What I see when I look at modern Republican politics is that the inmates have taken control of the asylum.

In that sense, perhaps "deranged" is better than "overgrown infants". But "overgrown infants" expresses my hope, however unfounded it may be, that they will someday grow out of it.

dgs49 wrote:Perhaps if you had had any exposure to the United States Constitution you would be aware that the national government is prohibited from actively participating in such private (and state) matters as health care, retirement funds, education, and things of that nature.

In England, completely on the contrary, the national government has made an overt and express commitment to health care, pensions, etc. Thus, when Lady Thatcher supported those programs and initiatives, she was acting fully in concert with the prevailing law and the national government's mandate.

As contrasted with this country, where such initiatives are blatantly unconstitutional, and thus run into at least the pretense of opposition when they are proposed, funded, and expanded beyond all rational justification.

He has no idea just how much comedic relief he provides, does he?

I have never understood the whole "The Supreme Court doesn't decide what is and is not Constitutional, I do that." thing...

I certainly can't speak for Andrew, who is quite capable of speaking (ad infinitum... ) for himself, but the meaning I took from the title and opening posts in this thread is that the stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution includes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and promoting the general welfare as surely as it does forming a more perfect Union, providing for the common defense, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity--and that disagreement as to what is constitutionally allowed for the purpose of promoting the general welfare does not constitute "socialism" any more than disagreement as to what is constitutionally allowed for the purpose of providing for the common defense constitutes "fascism".

If advocating for universal health care coverage makes me or Guin or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton a socialist then it surely also makes Margaret Thatcher a socialist--which I think we all would agree is patently absurd.

Econo, I don't know if your post was intended as response to mine or not, but just for clarity...

I was commenting on the quote of Dave's that Guin posted....

Dave and I have gone 'round and 'round about this before. Dave is one of those folks, (like Ron Paul) who is absolutely cocksure that he has absolute knowledge of what the constitution does and does not permit, and that basically the Supreme Court, rather than being the determiner of what is and is not constitutional, (which obviously it is) has for decades instead been an enabler for unconstitutional behavior by the government to the point that we are now awash in a sea of unconstitutionality...

These folks always like to say "The government should follow the Constitution!" when what they really mean is, "The government should follow what I say the constitution means"....

It's transparent, and really it gets a bit tiresome....